I was just wondering, what is the difference between Eastern Orthodox church and the Eastern Catholic church? when I was still very confused on whether to go the Roman Catholic route or the Eastern Orthodox route, I was advised on fisheaters (triditional catholic forum) to attend an Eastern Catholic church.

(just so you all know, I am not active on that forum any longer, and am now known by them as the resident "Ortho-troll".)

I was just wondering, what is the difference between Eastern Orthodox church and the Eastern Catholic church? when I was still very confused on whether to go the Roman Catholic route or the Eastern Orthodox route, I was advised on fisheaters (triditional catholic forum) to attend an Eastern Catholic church.

(just so you all know, I am not active on that forum any longer, and am now known by them as the resident "Ortho-troll".)

Eastern Catholics commemorate the Roman Catholic Pope as their Bishop and subscribe to some (but not all) doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. To me, commemoration of the Pope is the sole difference. Others can expound on the differences as needed.

Eastern Catholics commemorate the Roman Catholic Pope as their Bishop and subscribe to some (but not all) doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. To me, commemoration of the Pope is the sole difference.

They submit to the Pope so they also submit to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Eastern Catholics commemorate the Roman Catholic Pope as their Bishop and subscribe to some (but not all) doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. To me, commemoration of the Pope is the sole difference.

They submit to the Pope so they also submit to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

In regard to the Divine Liturgy, for the worshipper in the Nave today, there is no difference. This is the shocking truth. (I refuse to fight battles that occurred two hundred years ago or more.)

The sermon might reference some comment or document from the Vatican, but I suspect that is rare. As to commemorating the Pope, many Orthodox Churches commemorate a Patriarch (or other 'ruling Bishop') as well as a their local Bishop. Neither case demands 100% agreement with what the Pope or the Patriarch in question teaches or particularly believes. The issue is 'being in communion with', and this is the principle difference.

To the Orthodox, as comments above show, the very idea of being in communion with the Pope indicates acceptance of the papal claims to primacy. Oddly enough, if one reads the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils it is obvious that Rome showed pretensions to primacy even during the first millennium; these claims were simply and politely ignored by the Fathers of the Councils. I seem to recall at least one incident in which a message from the Pope was 'edited' by his representatives to exclude reference to papal supremacy. Thus, most of the comments that "they [must] submit to the Pope", are simply hogwash.

The real problem for Eastern Catholics is administrative. Outside the "traditional territories" the decisions as to episcopal assignments must be approved by the Congregation for Eastern Churches. Even revisions of the Divine Services are supposed to go through the Vatican. This is where the real betrayal occurs. Even if it is a matter as simple as a rubber stamp, Rome has no business approving or disapproving of these other Churches' internal matters. The Roman Church proclaims that each Church is equal and all the Rites of the Churches are equal; however, it insists on a "look see" to make sure the other Churches aren't getting off track. That does not show equality; it betrays an unhealthy paternalism ("maternalism"?) over the other Churches.

As to doctrinal oversight, Rome seems content to let the Eastern Churches believe what they want, so long as Rome can find a way to make it jibe with their views - witness the filioque in the Catechism. No, the issue is purely administrative. If Rome were serious about rapprochement with the Orthodox Churches it would close the Congregation for Eastern Churches and truly let the Eastern Churches mind their own business, while Rome minded its own business.

This would entail, or course, a recognition that papal infallibility extends no further than the infallibility of any Patriarch who, following the teachings of the Church Fathers, sets forth a matter of Faith and/or morals as official teaching. The ontological claims have to go.

Some years back both Pope Paul IV and John Paul II referred to a couple of the Roman recognized Councils as "Council of the West". if this view were truly put forth, what effect would it have on Catholic-Orthoodox relations?

In regard to the Divine Liturgy, for the worshipper in the Nave today, there is no difference.

Unless he cares about having a genuine Eucharist. Also, many Byzantine Catholic churches, in the US at least, have suffered from the "spirit of Vatican II" in a similar way to the Latin churches, so a noticeable difference in rubrics/ aesthetics is also present.

Quote

To the Orthodox, as comments above show, the very idea of being in communion with the Pope indicates acceptance of the papal claims to primacy.

That's because Rome makes these claims herself, and has solemnly dogmatized them. True, Rome had pretensions prior to the schism, but had not yet anathematized anyone who didn't indulge them.

Quote

Some years back both Pope Paul IV and John Paul II referred to a couple of the Roman recognized Councils as "Council of the West". if this view were truly put forth, what effect would it have on Catholic-Orthoodox relations?

It would just make the RCC appear more incoherent than it already is. How can Papal infallibility be "local"?

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

Eastern Catholics commemorate the Roman Catholic Pope as their Bishop and subscribe to some (but not all) doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. To me, commemoration of the Pope is the sole difference.

They submit to the Pope so they also submit to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Either one believes something or they do not. Now one may say since Eastern Catholics are in communion with the Pope of Rome and the Latin Catholic Church they are supposed to believe everything they teach but that is not even true of all Latin Catholics.

To the Orthodox, as comments above show, the very idea of being in communion with the Pope indicates acceptance of the papal claims to primacy.

That's because Rome makes these claims herself, and has solemnly dogmatized them. True, Rome had pretensions prior to the schism, but had not yet anathematized anyone who didn't indulge them.

I think you're missing the point, that the average Eastern Catholic worshipper doesn't give hoot, or even have much knowledge at all about these things. Now, I will admit that I interpreted the original question from the "worshipper in the Nave" perspective. And most of these people simply go to worship. The question of a 'genuine Eucharist' is a topic that doesn't enter their minds. It is also a question that is complicated by certain Orthodox groups speaking with differing voices on the topic.

Quote

Some years back both Pope Paul IV and John Paul II referred to a couple of the Roman recognized Councils as "Council of the West". if this view were truly put forth, what effect would it have on Catholic-Orthoodox relations?

It would just make the RCC appear more incoherent than it already is. How can Papal infallibility be "local"? [/quote]

There is an infallibility that is tautological in simply reinforcing or restating what is already part of the Church Tradition. This does not entail the ontological semi-divinity that most conceive papal infallibility as requiring. The infallibility of which I speak is guided by the Spirit and available to any Christian on, shall we say, an ad hoc basis. Thus St Maximos spoke infallibly when he defended the Faith, as did St Mark of Ephesus, as did St Gregory the Dialogist, and as did possibly even Christian recognized by the Roman Church as Saints who were so declared after the schism. Rome seems to have tacitly accepted the canonizations of all Orthodox Saints in a de facto manner (John Paul II referring to "St Seraphim of Sarov" and "St Nektarios of Aegina").

My point regarding the "Councils of the West" is that in terming these synods in such manner, Rome is making a gesture to reinterpret the scope, authority, and historical significance of them. It is fairly clear, if one reviews the Councils after Nicaea II”, as recognized by the Romans, that for the most part these synods dealt with matters specifically related to the Western Church and its troubles. Certainly we can agree that there were synods in the East whose scope of influence extends little further than the particular circumstances that led to their convening.

By taking such a stance we can even agree that certain synods (East or West) failed in their capacity to maintain and/or defend the Faith. For example, I have come to conclude that the synod of Vatopedi which recognized the revised calendar in 1930, although various groups had already adopted it independently and without counsel or concord with the rest of the Church, was a such a robbers synod. I have no doubt that such latrociniae could be equally exposed on the Western side.

We are drifting off point, but I believe the Orthodox should take Rome at its word and seriously sit down to re-examine the role of the Papacy as Rome offers. But don't just let bureaucratic middle men handle things. Get the best and most spiritual and intellectual Bishops and Archimandrites on one side and an equal number from Rome on the other. Have the Patriarchs attend, including Rome. Who knows? Perhaps the whole doctrine of papal infallibility was an act of the Spirit to lead the Romans to accept a return to true Orthodoxy as proposed and resulting from just such a synod. The Pope could proclaim ex cathedra, “I infallibly state that we will conform our liturgical practices according to x, y, and z according to P; we will now understand doctrines a, b, and c, in light of and accordance with Q. Further, these changes will be made in the government of the Roman Church to bring it into conformity with the Eastern Church (perhaps a few Eastern concessions would follow as well?), and henceforth all infallible authority in the One Church of Christ will be defined, proclaimed and defended by Ecumenical Council, etc., etc., etc.”

You may say, I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

On the other hand, I have been convinced in the Spirit that True Orthodoxy offers the only sure and safe hope for salvation for humanity.

In regard to the Divine Liturgy, for the worshipper in the Nave today, there is no difference.

Unless he cares about having a genuine Eucharist. Also, many Byzantine Catholic churches, in the US at least, have suffered from the "spirit of Vatican II" in a similar way to the Latin churches, so a noticeable difference in rubrics/ aesthetics is also present.

I don't know about the "spirit of Vatican II". The new translation has some horizontal inclusive language and some silent prayers are now said aloud. There are rubrical difference and between the Russian and Ruthenian Recensions that ACROD shares with the Byzantine Catholic Church and both make use of the same abbreviations and congregational chanting of Prostopinje. That said the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chysostom is essentially the same.

Eastern Catholics commemorate the Roman Catholic Pope as their Bishop and subscribe to some (but not all) doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. To me, commemoration of the Pope is the sole difference.

They submit to the Pope so they also submit to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Exactly! Though many of them will not admit it. There's an old saying - "It's not what's on the outside that counts, it's what in the inside'. That is so true in this case. Their faith should be based on their theology which is, or should be Roman Catholic, since they acknowledge both the Supremacy and Infallibity of the Pope. Otherwise, as I have said before, they are stating they are knowingly and willinging under the authority of a heretical bishop in denying their theology is 100 Roman Catholic (with the exception of the Filioque)! That's why some of them claim to be 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome' doesn't make sense unless they base what and who they are purely by how they worship!

It's hard to discuss theology with them because most have no idea what they are required to believe as part of the Catholic Church under the Pope.

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Eastern Catholics commemorate the Roman Catholic Pope as their Bishop and subscribe to some (but not all) doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. To me, commemoration of the Pope is the sole difference.

They submit to the Pope so they also submit to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

It's hard to discuss theology with them because most have no idea what they are required to believe as part of the Catholic Church under the Pope.

You set the mark they must cross and argue that if they see a different mark and aim for that they must turn to your assessment. It's hard to argue theology with them because lex orandi, lex credendi.

This is an interesting discussion, but if you were fifteen and found yourself in the middle of this, you would run for the hills.

My answer to Trevor is that generally speaking, your are correct in your observation that the Eastern Catholic churches are visually similar to their Orthodox counterparts both physically and liturgically.(The Youtube video you saw is from a Byzantine Catholic Church in Ohio. In the Orthodox world you would find similar singing and practices in a Carpatho-Russian Orthodox parish. For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYzVwnF48No ) However, Eastern Catholics profess to be Catholic Churches in union with the Roman Catholic Church, and hence the Pope of Rome. This fundamental difference separates them from their Orthodox counterparts. Unlike Orthodox Churches, they are not independent in the sense of being part of a local or national Church (like the Orthodox Church of Russia, the Orthodox Church of Greece, Serbia, Romania, etc....) and the selection of their Bishops must be approved by the Pope. As Catholics in union with Rome, they are required to believe some doctrines which are not accepted by the Orthodox Church. As you can see from the discussion here, exactly what this means is subject to a great deal of debate among well intentioned men and women. You might want to contact an Antiochian, Ukrainian, Romanian or Carpatho-Russian Orthodox priest in your area for his insight on this question since each of those groups have direct Eastern Catholic counterparts in the United States. He would be better able to take the time to give you a thorough explanation and defense of Orthodoxy! Good luck!

Eastern Catholics commemorate the Roman Catholic Pope as their Bishop and subscribe to some (but not all) doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. To me, commemoration of the Pope is the sole difference.

They submit to the Pope so they also submit to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Either one believes something or they do not. Now one may say since Eastern Catholics are in communion with the Pope of Rome and the Latin Catholic Church they are supposed to believe everything they teach but that is not even true of all Latin Catholics.

Whether the individual Latin or Eastern Catholic believes something or not is irrelevant. They are in communion with Rome so they have to accept the teachings. When the Eastern Rite Catholics entered communion with Rome, they accepted its teachings and rejected Orthodox teachings.

Eastern Catholics commemorate the Roman Catholic Pope as their Bishop and subscribe to some (but not all) doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. To me, commemoration of the Pope is the sole difference.

They submit to the Pope so they also submit to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Either one believes something or they do not. Now one may say since Eastern Catholics are in communion with the Pope of Rome and the Latin Catholic Church they are supposed to believe everything they teach but that is not even true of all Latin Catholics.

Whether the individual Latin or Eastern Catholic believes something or not is irrelevant. They are in communion with Rome so they have to accept the teachings. When the Eastern Rite Catholics entered communion with Rome, they accepted its teachings and rejected Orthodox teachings.

I agree! If they have the fredom to believe what they want then they are Protesstant!

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

I neglected to include the Filoque in my initial answer. Please forgive me.

Perhaps a third difference is that Eastern Catholic Churches can commemorate both Catholic and Orthodox Saints post-schism of 1054 (e.g. they can commemorate St. Francis of Assisi and St. Gregory Palamas - both are post-schism Saints).

Example, if one Church was Orthodox between 1054 and 1654 and became Eastern Catholic overnight - would they throw out the Saints they were commemorating for six Centuries after the schism?

Eastern Catholics commemorate the Roman Catholic Pope as their Bishop and subscribe to some (but not all) doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. To me, commemoration of the Pope is the sole difference.

They submit to the Pope so they also submit to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Either one believes something or they do not. Now one may say since Eastern Catholics are in communion with the Pope of Rome and the Latin Catholic Church they are supposed to believe everything they teach but that is not even true of all Latin Catholics.

Whether the individual Latin or Eastern Catholic believes something or not is irrelevant. They are in communion with Rome so they have to accept the teachings. When the Eastern Rite Catholics entered communion with Rome, they accepted its teachings and rejected Orthodox teachings.

That's why the "Profession of Faith" from the 1995 Melkite synod is sheer madness.

Quote from: 1995 Melkite Synod

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium before the separation.

Believing in first negates the second, and vice versa. If you believe "everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches", then communion with a person who is essentially a vagante bishop is out of the question. If you're in communion with the so-called "'Bishop' of Rome", you have to at least acknowledge the RC innovations since the schism as legitimate theologoumena, which conflicts with believing in Orthodoxy, because Orthodoxy does not permit the innovations as theologoumena, but condemns them instead.

The most exasperating part is the line about the "first millennium before the separation" - brushing off a millennium of dangerous dogmatic innovations on the part of the organization in Rome that purports to have succeeded the last Orthodox patriarch of Rome.

What Rome was prior to the innovations was at one point part of Orthodoxy, but Eastern-rite Catholics, including Melkites, are in communion with Rome today, and how they do not recognize what a different light that colors things in, is beyond me.

« Last Edit: March 13, 2010, 11:22:57 PM by Orual »

Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better.

An issue ismarriage. In the roman catholic church the couple performs the sacrament with the deacon or priest as a witness. Hence if an annulment happens the vatican says the couple never performed the sacrament. Eastern catholic churches say they are the same as us and the priest performs the marriage. But greek catholics have to get an annulment. So how can a sacrament performed by a prist not have happened? Why use roman marriage contract in eastern churches? If they weren't so roman bound they would have divorce like we do and not annulments like the latins.

An issue ismarriage. In the roman catholic church the couple performs the sacrament with the deacon or priest as a witness. Hence if an annulment happens the vatican says the couple never performed the sacrament. Eastern catholic churches say they are the same as us and the priest performs the marriage. But greek catholics have to get an annulment. So how can a sacrament performed by a prist not have happened? Why use roman marriage contract in eastern churches? If they weren't so roman bound they would have divorce like we do and not annulments like the latins.

Good observation. I know many within the Eastern Rite of the Roman Catholic sui juris churches who complin that they are not invited to participate in the Roman Catholic/Orthodox Catholic dialogue. This is an example of why. It shows that the forced union that created this church has been anything but a success. Issues like these are bound to be brought up. There are many more.

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches reject the teaching of the surplus merits of the saints and the doctrine of indulgences whereas Eastern Catholic Church all beneficed clergy must be celibate, whether they are in monastic order or not.

From my experience of The Eastern Catholic Ukrainian Church, in chicago ,the one i was in had assembly line liturgy one after another, No veneration of the Holy Cross or the blessed bread given out...

The Church looked Orthodox, but it lacked the Orthodox ethos, Spirit....A pale Imitation of what Holy Orthodoxy Truly is....

From my experiences, the practices within Eastern Catholic Churches vary widely from parish to parish, evenwithin the same Diocese. A counterpoint to Stashko's observation (which I, too, have seen in other areas) can be found at St. Elias Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Brampton, Ont. http://www.saintelias.com/ca/index.php These widely divergent practices must be confusing for the faithful, I would think.....

I was just wondering, what is the difference between Eastern Orthodox church and the Eastern Catholic church?

Seeing as how not everyone in the Roman communion is of an Eastern rite and not every Eastern Catholic church is of the same jurisdiction, I think it's safe to say that there is no such thing as one "Eastern Catholic church". There is one Roman communion. There are 22 Eastern Catholic particular churches within it.

With that out of the way, technically any Eastern Catholic with any shred of integrity in their faith has to believe in all of the dogmatic definitions of Rome. Unfortunately, in this day and age, there seem to be many Eastern Catholics lacking such integrity.

Maybe instead of asking what the difference between Orthodoxy and the Eastern Catholic churches, maybe answering the question "What is the difference between Eastern and Roman Catholicism?" would help you see the issue from a different perspective. Are you thinking of a body of faith or of a ritual tradition? I know you have already made your choice on which direction to go, but it's something to take into consideration when asking these questions. It's similar to asking "What's the difference between Roman Catholicism and Western Rite Orthodoxy?".

From my experience of The Eastern Catholic Ukrainian Church, in chicago ,the one i was in had assembly line liturgy one after another, No veneration of the Holy Cross or the blessed bread given out...

The Church looked Orthodox, but it lacked the Orthodox ethos, Spirit....A pale Imitation of what Holy Orthodoxy Truly is....

From my experiences, the practices within Eastern Catholic Churches vary widely from parish to parish, evenwithin the same Diocese. A counterpoint to Stashko's observation (which I, too, have seen in other areas) can be found at St. Elias Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Brampton, Ont. http://www.saintelias.com/ca/index.php These widely divergent practices must be confusing for the faithful, I would think.....

Forgot to mention in my post above they had [Gasp] A confession Booth....

Maybe instead of asking what the difference between Orthodoxy and the Eastern Catholic churches, maybe answering the question "What is the difference between Eastern and Roman Catholicism?" would help you see the issue from a different perspective. Are you thinking of a body of faith or of a ritual tradition? I know you have already made your choice on which direction to go, but it's something to take into consideration when asking these questions. It's similar to asking "What's the difference between Roman Catholicism and Western Rite Orthodoxy?".

Just thoughts.

Theologically there should be no difference between all churches that accept the Pope as the head of the earthly churches. This includes those who use the ritual and traditions of their Orthodox Catholic ancestors. Otherwise if this were true, these churches are saying that they are knowingly and willingly under the ultimate authority of a hierach that proclaims, upholds, and protects doctrine they themselves do not believe. Which can be also intreputed to mean that they accept as the religious leader a bishop who believes and teaches heresy. Many of them will go to extremes to try and justify their position when confronted with RC doctrine they do not accept as classifying it as being a theologumen, or just a westrn expression.

It is the doctrine that one believes, practices, and upholds that proclaims one's faith. Not the type of ritual one practices. This misconception is why some of them believe in the oxymoron that they are in fact, 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome'. There is no such thing!

I always have to smile when they accuse us of disunity.

Orthodoc

« Last Edit: July 03, 2010, 07:57:15 AM by Orthodoc »

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

From my experience of The Eastern Catholic Ukrainian Church, in chicago ,the one i was in had assembly line liturgy one after another, No veneration of the Holy Cross or the blessed bread given out...

The Church looked Orthodox, but it lacked the Orthodox ethos, Spirit....A pale Imitation of what Holy Orthodoxy Truly is....

From my experiences, the practices within Eastern Catholic Churches vary widely from parish to parish, evenwithin the same Diocese. A counterpoint to Stashko's observation (which I, too, have seen in other areas) can be found at St. Elias Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Brampton, Ont. http://www.saintelias.com/ca/index.php These widely divergent practices must be confusing for the faithful, I would think.....

Forgot to mention in my post above they had [Gasp] A confession Booth....

Not at the Eastern Catholic Church that I used to attend.

« Last Edit: July 06, 2010, 12:14:17 PM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Oh, me, oh, my, one of the perennial topics of online theological warriors.

Byzantine Catholics (called Greek Catholics in Europe and sometimes in America; Byzantine Rite = 'Greek Rite') and other Eastern-rite Catholics have the same doctrines as the Roman Catholic Church of course. Rome claims it's the one true church (as Orthodoxy claims of itself) and with that comes the power to define doctrine. That means if you know of the doctrine, you must accept it.

That said, IMO you can finesse every Roman Catholic doctrine into Byzantine theology except the one about the scope of the Pope.

Liturgical practice among Greek Catholics (I'm old-fashioned so I use the old term) varies a lot, from just like the Orthodox (Melkites and the tiny Russian Catholic Church, consisting of non-Russian born RCs and converts from Protestantism in America) to something nice like the old Latin Mass in a different language to, in lots of places, something with a very Vatican II feel to it only not nearly as liberal as your local RC parish. (A very few places even have some lay people giving Communion and altar girls.)

Rome wants them to be just like the Orthodox in church and again holding all RC doctrines but expressed in Byzantine terms. If you believe as Rome does about the Pope, it's a perfectly sensible and honourable position.

Over the centuries a lot of them disobeyed that and imitated the Roman Rite in varying degrees, sometimes to try to please the suspicious local Roman Riters, sometimes to spite the local Orthodox. (Ukrainian nationalism, part of the territory of Galicia, not the whole Ukraine: the Ukrainian Catholic Church is a big part of that. A few Russianisms - onion dome, a few icons, married priest, Cyrillic alphabet - to show they're not Polish, but lots of Polishisms - clean-shaven priest, RC devotions, even no iconostasis - to show they're not Russian.) As most here know, that's called latinisation.

(A certain amount of crossover is normal even with the Orthodox, from certain devotions - the icon of Mary with seven daggers around where her heart would be comes from the Poles - and Russian baroque architecture, Russians' Westernised choral music and icons that look like Western paintings... to parishes of the now-OCA, most of which are descendants of Ruthenian Greek Catholics who switched to the Russians around 1900, having Solemn First Communion for 7-year-olds... to the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church, former Ruthenian Greek Catholics who for years after converting in the 1930s kept many of their traditional latinised practices* - the Patriarch of Constantinople didn't try to change them - and in the hollows of Pennsylvania and Ohio some still do.) *Such as First Communion for the 7-year-olds, priests in Latin cassocks, monsignori and bination (a priest celebrating two Liturgies in one day on the same altar).

Your rank-and-file ethnic Greek Catholic is essentially a Roman Catholic with a different, rather better Mass. Most are fine with being called Roman Catholic, Ukrainian (Ruthenian etc.) Catholic, even Uniate (now a no-no in ecumenical talks); just don't call them Orthodox.

A good number of people in Greek Catholic parishes are Roman Riters who rightly hate what Vatican II did to their rite and found a sturdy refuge while remaining under Rome. Fine folk.

The 'Orthodox in communion with Rome' are a tiny minority of Greek Catholics, mostly converts from the Roman Rite or elsewhere and mostly online. Externally they're what Rome wants but they deny the RC doctrines the Orthodox do, yet they're where they are, which doesn't make sense. A lot of them get fed up after a few years and become Orthodox.

The only time I ever attended an Eastern-Rite liturgy I could tell immediately I wasn't in an Orthodox church, long before we ever got to the Flioque or the Hail Mary. Perhaps it's the feeling of a connection being broken.

I know Byzantine-Rite Catholics tend to think they are Orthodox, but it just felt different. Anyone else have that experience?

The only time I ever attended an Eastern-Rite liturgy I could tell immediately I wasn't in an Orthodox church, long before we ever got to the Flioque or the Hail Mary. Perhaps it's the feeling of a connection being broken.

I know Byzantine-Rite Catholics tend to think they are Orthodox, but it just felt different. Anyone else have that experience?

Real "Byzantine-rite Catholics" (ie those born there, not those that switched from the Roman rite or Protestants) I can assure you, they don't think or say one minute that they are Orthodox, especially after Communism.

Logged

She hears, upon that water without sound, A voice that cries, “The tomb in Palestine Is not the porch of spirits lingering. It is the grave of Jesus, where he lay.” We live in an old chaos of the sun, Or old dependency of day and night, Or island solitude, unsponsored, free, Of that wide water, inescapable.

... to parishes of the now-OCA, most of which are descendants of Ruthenian Greek Catholics who switched to the Russians around 1900, having Solemn First Communion for 7-year-olds...

I don't believe this is the case. Nowadays, roughly half of OCA members are converts; but those who were born into the church that eventually became OCA are mostly Russian (mindful of what "Russian" meant before 1917), with a generous sampling of Ukrainians, and Carpathians/Czechs. The liturgical practice is definitely Slavic, not Carpatho-Russian. I've never heard of an OCA parish having first communion for seven-year-olds. Certainly, it is not the practice in my parish. Maybe the author is mixing up OCA and C-R?

As I understand it (my experience is limited, but this is what I was told by a C-R priest), the condition set by the Carpatho-Russian metropolis in coming under the jurisdiction of the EP was that they be allowed to keep all their liturgical practices not in conflict with Orthodox canons. So, for example, they say the Angelus and have some other recognizably Latinate forms, but (of course) use the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Real "Byzantine-rite Catholics" (ie those born there, not those that switched from the Roman rite or Protestants) I can assure you, they don't think or say one minute that they are Orthodox, especially after Communism.

There are basically three discourses in Byzantine Catholicism-- Ruthenian, Ukranian, and Melkite. The Ruthenian discourse is defined largely by the context of its American emigration and the experience of a return of a large proportion of its people to Orthodoxy in the early 20th century. The Ukranian discourse is absorbed entirely with not being Russian, and so I've very rarely seen it discuss anything theological, only perceived grievances against the Russians.

The Melkite discourse, on the other hand, because of the lack of a serious political context behind it (Robert Haddad has a good study showing that most ordinary conversions to Catholicism among the Orthodox were because of looser cousin-marriage and fasting canons) is the most prone to being theological and the most prone to talking about being "Orthodox in communion with Rome", though this seems to have been a discourse much more favored by some of its more educated hierarchs rather than the rank-and-file in the Middle East. Among those hierarchs, there's a strong tendency to not exactly be sure why they're Catholic and not Orthoodox, while among the laity there's a strong tendency to not be exactly sure why they're Greek Catholics and not Latins. With some notable exceptions (Deir Mar Mukhallis, the Church of St. Paul at Harissa), Greek Catholic liturgies in the Middle East are Latinized beyond all recognition.

So my point is, I guess, that there's not much point for Orthodox engaging with "Eastern Catholicism" as a whole, as though it were one thing. Some elements of Greek Catholicism have too much political and cultural baggage to be engaged with on the level of churches, while in other cases, especially the Melkites, the Orthodox should be trying to model to them how to properly live their tradition so that they will return to it, and ultimately to the Church.

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Samn,That's fair. To which I might add that Romanian Greek-Catholic discourse is quite close to the Ukrainian one, mutatis mutandis, of course: anti-slavic/Eastern, pro-Western Catholic, always stressing the idea of our Latinity, our natural connection to Rome, brutally interrupted by the Bulgarian Church .

Logged

She hears, upon that water without sound, A voice that cries, “The tomb in Palestine Is not the porch of spirits lingering. It is the grave of Jesus, where he lay.” We live in an old chaos of the sun, Or old dependency of day and night, Or island solitude, unsponsored, free, Of that wide water, inescapable.

... to parishes of the now-OCA, most of which are descendants of Ruthenian Greek Catholics who switched to the Russians around 1900, having Solemn First Communion for 7-year-olds...

I don't believe this is the case. Nowadays, roughly half of OCA members are converts; but those who were born into the church that eventually became OCA are mostly Russian (mindful of what "Russian" meant before 1917), with a generous sampling of Ukrainians, and Carpathians/Czechs. The liturgical practice is definitely Slavic, not Carpatho-Russian. I've never heard of an OCA parish having first communion for seven-year-olds. Certainly, it is not the practice in my parish. Maybe the author is mixing up OCA and C-R?

As I understand it (my experience is limited, but this is what I was told by a C-R priest), the condition set by the Carpatho-Russian metropolis in coming under the jurisdiction of the EP was that they be allowed to keep all their liturgical practices not in conflict with Orthodox canons. So, for example, they say the Angelus and have some other recognizably Latinate forms, but (of course) use the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Under the old Metropolia, First Communion was replaced over the years by First Confession, a ritual that has for the most part faded away in the OCA but still remains in ACROD. In the early days, pictures of the First Confession classes of the Metropolia were indistinguishable from First Communion Classes of the Greek Catholics. (My mother in law grew up in a Metropolia parish in Frackville, PA and we have her class picture from around 1929 and the OCA parish in Binghamton maintained the custom through the 1960's.) This can be confirmed by referencing the Journals published in the mid 20th century, usually called the Viestnik/Messenger, be they of Metropolia or Greek Catholic or ACROD origin. (Same name, different publishers and audiences!)

I am 57 years old and the son of an ACROD priest and I have no idea what you mean by the Angelus as I never heard that term, either in NE Pennsylvania or the southern tier of NY. It is true that there were Rosary reciters in some ACROD parishes through the early 1990's but as the old women died off who were raised with that pious tradition, so did the Rosary.

Those of us from ACROD can attest that the wisdom and patience of the EP and her Archbishops in New York, particularly the late Archbishop Iakovos, allowed the shedding of Latin innovations over time, rather than a rapid decompression as was the case in the first wave of Rusyn returnees to Orthodoxy following St. Alexis. It also should be noted that some of the alleged 'Latinate' forms that some in the former Metropolia objected to were in fact pre-Nikonian forms that the Rusyns, being isolated geographically from Moscow and spiritually from Constantinople after 1453, adhered to through the period of the unions.

I would also contest any assertion that the majority of the original Metropolia's founders were ethnic Russians, even as defined by the old Tsarist ethnographers prior to the revolution. Most of the parishes in the Mid Atlantic and North East US were founded by Rusyn immigrants from the old Austria-Hungary or Galician/Lemko immigrants from the old Poland and Imperial Russia. While many of these people came to assert that they were 'Russian' they most certainly were not. They spoke not the Russian language and the folk customs that they brought to the new country associated with their religious life, such as Svatyj Vecer/Holy Supper, Jaslickari/Bethlehem Caroling, Pysynky/Krasanky (decorative Paschal eggs), Christmas Carols, Marian hymns and the unique liturgical chant that was native to the Rusyns and Lemkos , folk dances and folk songs were definitively not of great Russian origin. Many a young man returned to America after the War to tell how surprised to learn that the Russian soldiers they met did not speak Russian! Of course, those young Americans spoke Rusyn (po nashemu) or Galician-Ukrainian.

It is true that by 1940 or so that these Metropolia parishes had become, for all intents and purposes, Russian in name and practice. It was the loss of those customs and practices (which most Rusyns and Galicians who were not Orthodox at that time were well aware of) that led the founders of ACROD to Constantinople's omophor, rather than Moscow's (through the Metropolia at that time) and Ukrainians returning to Orthodoxy to their own jurisdiction during the same historical period.

I am not disparaging anyone's history or background, but I offer this in hopes that Orthodox from both ACROD and the OCA understand that their histories are linked and, like it or not, they have a complex relationship with Eastern Catholics both within community and family.

There are basically three discourses in Byzantine Catholicism-- Ruthenian, Ukranian, and Melkite. The Ruthenian discourse is defined largely by the context of its American emigration and the experience of a return of a large proportion of its people to Orthodoxy in the early 20th century. The Ukranian discourse is absorbed entirely with not being Russian, and so I've very rarely seen it discuss anything theological, only perceived grievances against the Russians.

The Melkite discourse, on the other hand, because of the lack of a serious political context behind it (Robert Haddad has a good study showing that most ordinary conversions to Catholicism among the Orthodox were because of looser cousin-marriage and fasting canons) is the most prone to being theological and the most prone to talking about being "Orthodox in communion with Rome", though this seems to have been a discourse much more favored by some of its more educated hierarchs rather than the rank-and-file in the Middle East. Among those hierarchs, there's a strong tendency to not exactly be sure why they're Catholic and not Orthoodox, while among the laity there's a strong tendency to not be exactly sure why they're Greek Catholics and not Latins. With some notable exceptions (Deir Mar Mukhallis, the Church of St. Paul at Harissa), Greek Catholic liturgies in the Middle East are Latinized beyond all recognition.

So my point is, I guess, that there's not much point for Orthodox engaging with "Eastern Catholicism" as a whole, as though it were one thing. Some elements of Greek Catholicism have too much political and cultural baggage to be engaged with on the level of churches, while in other cases, especially the Melkites, the Orthodox should be trying to model to them how to properly live their tradition so that they will return to it, and ultimately to the Church.

You offer a lot of insight to this issue and I agree with your analysis.

The only time I ever attended an Eastern-Rite liturgy I could tell immediately I wasn't in an Orthodox church, long before we ever got to the Flioque or the Hail Mary. Perhaps it's the feeling of a connection being broken.

I know Byzantine-Rite Catholics tend to think they are Orthodox, but it just felt different. Anyone else have that experience?

Real "Byzantine-rite Catholics" (ie those born there, not those that switched from the Roman rite or Protestants) I can assure you, they don't think or say one minute that they are Orthodox, especially after Communism.

Cardinal/Metropolitan Huzar of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics is fond of using the term 'Orthodox united with Rome.' However, I am not sure that the laity would join in that sentiment as for them unfortunately the term "Orthodox' is synonymous with Russian occupation and domination. This is also true in other countries of East Europe where there are pockets of Greek Catholics and Orthodox living in proximity to each other. Some have better relationships than others.

The only time I ever attended an Eastern-Rite liturgy I could tell immediately I wasn't in an Orthodox church, long before we ever got to the Flioque or the Hail Mary. Perhaps it's the feeling of a connection being broken.

I know Byzantine-Rite Catholics tend to think they are Orthodox, but it just felt different. Anyone else have that experience?

As someone stated above, there is no cohesive Eastern Catholicism. It differs from place to place. For example, I wouldn't say that to the Ukrainian Greek Catholics from Brampton, Ontario. http://www.saintelias.com/ca/home/

I don't know of any Eastern Catholic Churches that recite the Filioque in the Creed.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I don't know of any Eastern Catholic Churches that recite the Filioque in the Creed.

The Ruthenian Trebnik printed prior to the war under the auspices of the Greek Catholic ordinary of Presov, Slovakia did contain the filioque in the Creed. Some versions of Duchnovic's Chlib Duse prayerbook include it (Greek Catholic imprimatur) and some, under Orthodox imprint do not. I have seen both over the years. I believe that is also the case in liturgical and prayer books printed in both Uzhorod and L'viv under Greek Catholic imprimatur through Vatican 2, although for obvious reasons most such books were of pre-war origin.

We used to use some of those Slavonic texts when I was a boy with both the imprimatur's and filioque being 'whited out' or crossed off.

At the Ruthenian Church that I occasionally attend, the old liturgical books had the Filioque crossed out. When we got new books, the Filioque was simply absent.

« Last Edit: November 23, 2010, 04:23:59 PM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.